Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill - Standing Committee E

[Ann Winterton in the Chair]

Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

Ann Winterton: I welcome hon. Members to the Committee dealing with this important legislation, especially those newer Members who may or may not have served on such a Committee before. Perhaps it is opportune to say to the gentlemen Committee members that if it gets a little too warm for them and they feel a hot flush coming on, it will be quite in order for them to remove their jackets.
Copies of the programme motion, agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee earlier this morning, are available in the Room. I remind the Committee that debate on the programme motion may continue for up to half an hour.

Shaun Woodward: I beg to move
That—
(1)during proceedings on the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 8th November) meet—
(a)at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 8th November;
(b)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 10th November;
(2)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 10th November.
Good morning, Lady Winterton, and I welcome you to the Chair. I am sure that all Committee members will welcome your expert guidance. I have removed my jacket; I have not done so because of a hot flush, but we shall see what happens during our proceedings.
It is good to see that we have started the Committee in a co-operative and constructive spirit, and I hope that that will prevail. We managed to agree the process through the usual channels, and the programme motion does not contain knives, so it is not intended to curtail what I am sure will be a very important, constructive debate.
This is obviously an extremely important Bill for the people of Northern Ireland. It is important that we have a constructive debate, and the Government want to listen to the arguments made by all sides regarding the content of the Bill, with the aim of ensuring that the legislation we put on the statute book serves the people of Northern Ireland as best as it possibly can. In that spirit of constructive engagement and in welcoming all members of the Committee, I support the motion.

Laurence Robertson: I welcome you to the Chair, Lady Winterton. It is the first time that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship and I very much look forward to it.
The Opposition are always opposed in principle to programme motions because a Bill should have an adequate amount of time devoted to it. However, in this case, there are two overriding factors. First, the Bill is very short and, secondly, we are in favour of it in principle. So we shall not object to the programme motion and look forward to engaging in the debate.

Lorely Burt: May I, too, add my welcome to you, Lady Winterton? I am sure that we shall enjoy the benefit of your guidance and expertise, particularly new Members, such as myself. It is my first time sitting on a Committee, so I apologise in advance if I do anything that is not entirely appropriate. Speaking of which, I have almost brought a hot flush on myself—I am more likely than most to experience that today.
I echo the sentiments on the constructive approach to this important Bill. I should also like to mention the Government Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) says that he has never known a situation in which Whips have consulted more on programme motions.

Question put and agreed to.

Ann Winterton: I remind hon. Members that adequate notice of amendments should be given and, as a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. I have another housekeeping notice: please would all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or on silent mode? William Tell and his overture are not welcome in this Committee.

Clause 1 - Continuance in force of Part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Gregory Campbell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out ‘2008’ and insert ‘2012’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert
‘and may by order extend that period for further consecutive periods of twelve months.’.
No. 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out ‘2008’ and insert ‘2012’.

Gregory Campbell: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—or chairpersonship—Lady Winterton.

Ann Winterton: Order. It may help members of the Committee if I say that I am an absolute traditionalist and “Chairman” is to my mind the right term.

Gregory Campbell: I am delighted that you have dealt a blow to political correctness, Lady Winterton.
As was said during the brief debate on the programme motion, this is a short Bill and therefore you, Lady Winterton, and Committee members will be pleased to know that my remarks will be accordingly brief. I know that, occasionally, those are famous last  words and when people begin by saying that, their contribution is anything but brief. However, that is certainly my intention.
The issue relates to the principle of caution. In last week’s debate on Second Reading, the word “caution” was repeated many times. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are of a cautionary nature. A message needs to be sent to the people of Northern Ireland that the legislation will continue not just for the next two or three years, but for a period of time beyond that. We all hope that terrorism comes to an end, does not return and, rather than increasing, diminishes and hopefully disappears. However, we need to ensure that the legislative process is in place to deal with a possible negative outturn.
As was stated in the Chamber, the Government have been prepared to proceed apace when responding to IRA statements and to moves in the peace process. Examples have been given and I do not wish to delay proceedings by repeating them. However, they include the release of Sean Kelly and the removal of watchtowers. All those were precipitative moves by the Government. When considering legislation, we want to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland understand that there will be no such precipitative move in this case. The insertion of “2012” in lieu of “2008” would send out a clear signal that the legislation is intended to be on the statute book for a period not exceeding another seven years and would be there in the eventuality that it was required.

Laurence Robertson: In my opening remarks, I said that the Bill has the support of the official Opposition, as was made clear on Second Reading. We also said that we deeply regret the need for it because we had hoped that paramilitary organisations would cease their activities, which would make the Bill unnecessary. Regrettably, that is not the case and I might go on to detail one or two reasons why in a moment. We regret the need for the Bill, but, nevertheless, we recognise that that need is there.
We desire normality in Northern Ireland. It is one of the many things that people in Northern Ireland want. They want to be treated normally and they want normality in the Province. That has not been the case to date, but it must be the desire of everybody in the Committee and throughout the Province.
Amendment No. 4 is slightly different from our proposal. It would give the Secretary of State the power to continue provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000 until 2012. We sympathise with that, but we propose that the Secretary of State has the power to extend the provisions annually to, for example, 2012 or beyond if deemed necessary. They should be extended annually so that every year we have the chance to consider the situation in Northern Ireland and determine whether it is necessary to extend the period in which the provisions apply.
There can be no doubt that the provisions of the 2000 Act need to be extended. The recent Independent Monitoring Commission report says:
“The involvement of paramilitaries in organised crime goes deep.”
That is a profound statement. It goes on to say:
“We have concluded that because of this paramilitary involvement organised crime is the biggest long term threat to the rule of law in Northern Ireland.”
It follows up that statement by saying:
“The criminals are flexible and resilient.”
“Long term” and “resilient” demonstrate why we tabled our amendment and, I am sure, why the hon. Gentleman tabled his. We are not convinced that by 2008 the situation will be normal. The Government could at that point introduce primary legislation to extend the provisions of the 2000 Act, but it could be done better if it were based on our proposal.
We are concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt that in certain ways there has been much improvement. We welcome the IRA statement and the statement that followed, suggesting that all IRA arms had been put beyond use. We are worried, however, because we have yet to hear that the proceeds from the Northern bank robbery have been put beyond use. That money is unaccounted for, we do not know where it is and we do not know the purpose of the bank robbery. All we know is that the Government, the Irish Government and the Police Service of Northern Ireland have stated that the IRA was responsible for the robbery. It did not take place long ago, so the proceeds must still exist. Even if the IRA had disposed of all its weaponry, the purchase of more is well within its capability. While that situation exists, we need the provisions before us.
On the so-called loyalist side—I do not like to refer to them as loyalists, but that is the term attached to them—a statutory instrument will tomorrow specify loyalist groups. That can hardly be described as normality. There have been six murders so far this year and 69 shootings and 70 beatings in the period between 1 March and 31 August, and the feud between the Ulster Volunteer Force and Loyalist Volunteer Force continues.
I sat in with the police in Belfast and watched the video tape of the riots just a few weeks ago. I said this on the Floor of the House and I repeat it now: it was shameful to see people who were wearing Orange Order sashes take them off and throw missiles at the police and incite others to do similar. That is wrong, it is an absolute outrage and it cannot be described as normality.
On both sides of the divide, criminality and violence continue. Again the IMC report notes:
“Unreported acts of intimidation are far more numerous than acts of violence, are often traumatic in their impact and are not recorded in statistics.”
As well as recorded violence, there is a background of intimidation. Again, that cannot be described as normality.
Although amendment No. 6 is similar to the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, ours is slightly more flexible. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Lembit Öpik: I welcome you to your position as Chairman of this Committee, Lady Winterton. You may be interested to know that at a debate at the university of Oxford last Thursday on political correctness it was pointed out to me that the term chairman derives not from the “chair” and the male of our species, but from “chair” and the French for hand. Therefore, to be a Chairman is to have one’s hand on the Chair. No greater or more impressive Chair could we have than Lady Winterton—although I seek neither favour nor peerage for having said so.
The Democratic Unionist party amendments would change the date when the provisions of the Bill will fall to 1 August 2012 and therefore extend the period of the orders from the two and a half years proposed to seven and a half years. The Liberal Democrats disagree with that change. We are talking about special provisions for Northern Ireland to deal with a special situation that does not extend to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is right for the Government to keep the situation under review, especially given that we are trying to normalise Northern Ireland rather than entrench the divide between Northern Irish law and that pertaining to the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we supported the Bill on Second Reading only because the Government seemed intensely aware of the need to time-limit the legislation.
Furthermore, the DUP amendments would enable an annual review by Parliament in the form of a statutory instrument, but such measures cannot be amended. We would not be able to seek to repeal any sections of part 7 of the 2000 Act or modify it in the intervening years. For that reason, we would be minded to oppose the DUP amendments.
Amendment No. 6, tabled by the Conservatives, is similar to the DUP amendment but goes even further by being open-ended. There is no definite date by which the Government would have to come back to Parliament with primary legislation, which makes me uncomfortable. As right hon. and hon. Members know, I am uncomfortable about the extent to which we already use statutory instruments for important legislation on Northern Ireland. I have certainly had the impression that Conservative Members share my concern that substantial pieces of legislation affecting Northern Ireland continue to be an all-or-nothing affair. Therefore, I ask them to think again. Do they really want to add another tranche of statutory instrument Committees to the annual merry-go-round that already occupies so much of our time yet provides us with so little opportunity to amend Government legislation on Northern Ireland? The whole House should have the opportunity to discuss and take decisions on such legislation, not just a few Members on a Standing Committee.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but for those reasons we would be minded to oppose the three amendments.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I rise to support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). The primary motivation for tabling the amendments is the ongoing nature of the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, not just the threat from one particular paramilitary terrorist organisation. We know that, with the statement at the end of July and the further act of decommissioning that we are told took place in September, the threat from the Provisional IRA appears to be diminishing.
In my constituency on Saturday, at the annual festival of racing at the Down Royal race course, we had a clear example of the ongoing threat from terrorism, when the Continuity IRA, one of the so-called dissident republican groups, planted a device, albeit one not capable of exploding, and phoned some warnings through to the race course. As a result, the meeting had to be abandoned. Ten thousand people were there, many of them visitors from the Irish Republic and Great Britain, and significant disruption was caused.
Earlier in the week the national conference of shopping centres at the Waterfront hall in Belfast—a major conference that we had managed to attract to Belfast—was also disrupted by bomb warnings, and the hall had to be evacuated. In the summer the annual oyster festival took place in Hillsborough in my constituency. On that occasion dissident republican groups planted a device, which caused the festival to be abandoned for the day.
Those may not seem like big events or to represent a significant threat in the wider scheme of things, but they disrupt the life of Northern Ireland, they damage our economy and the positive image of Northern Ireland that we are trying to promote, and they are evidence that there remains a threat from terrorism.
Even if, in the recent words of Gerry Adams, the Provisional IRA is of a mind that the war is over—if it ever was a war—and even if the loyalist paramilitaries, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force, follow the position adopted recently by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and decide to stand down their active service units and also to decommission their weapons, which one hopes they do, the dissident republican groups, mainly the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA, have been clear: their campaign continues. They refute absolutely the political agenda pursued by Sinn Fein. They have made it clear that they regard Sinn Fein as, for whatever reason, having betrayed the true republican vision. There is no doubt that Sinn Fein has had to settle for a great deal less than a united Ireland—indeed, even for partition. Therefore, the threat is there. That is why we as a party believe that it is prudent to extend the life of the Bill beyond that envisaged by the Government. For the foreseeable future, and certainly beyond the period stated in the Bill, there remains a threat from terrorism.
Let us not forget that the Omagh bomb, which was the worst atrocity in the terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland, was perpetrated by the Real Ira, one of those dissident groups that is not on ceasefire and  continues to be a real threat to stability in Northern Ireland. That is why we believe that the amendments to extend the duration of the legislation to 2012 are prudent. They send out a clear signal, to the dissident groups and to the loyalist paramilitary groups that have not yet made the necessary moves to establish a peaceful society, that the Government will protect the people of Northern Ireland, uphold the rule of law and take whatever special measures are necessary to protect our community. That is why we support the Bill in principle, but believe that its lifespan should be extended to the period proposed by the amendments.

Shaun Woodward: It has been a helpful discussion. It has covered a number of areas and touched on critical issues relating to the enabling environment, security normalisation and the way in which we should proceed constructively and optimistically and whether that is reasonably based.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) rightly referred to the appalling incidents at the race course on Saturday and to the interruption of the oyster festival at Hillsborough in the summer. I happened to be the duty Minister on both those weekends, so I was in the Province when those incidents happened. There is no question but that such incidents are hugely disruptive, but the judgment we must make is whether those interruptions justify preventing us from moving forward with the enabling environment to create security normalisation. Our judgment is that, however appalling the actions and however strongly we condemn them—we absolutely and unreservedly do that—we should not interrupt the progress towards the goal of security normalisation, which we would if we acceded to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I shall explore some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman when speaking to his two amendments.
The amendments would allow the Secretary of State to make an order continuing part 7 in force for a period ending before 1 August 2012. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the pace of security normalisation and the continuing need for the provisions, and I want to put on record that I share his sense of caution about how we should proceed, but we must make a judgment about how we exercise that caution and the signals that we would send out.
Of course we recognise that we have a duty to protect the safety of everyone in all communities in Northern Ireland, and that leads us to be cautious, but we must distinguish between being cautious and allowing that caution to damage the optimism that I believe genuinely exists and on which we are making progress. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to a programme of security normalisation culminating in the repeal of these provisions, we do not take the enabling environment for granted. Therefore, the Bill contains provisions to extend the life of part 7 for a further year after 2007, and that will be used if the enabling environment is not sustained and security normalisation is not possible within that time frame.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) seeks in his amendment to put the part 7 revisions on a semi-permanent footing by allowing the Secretary of State to extend them for consecutive periods of 12 months without a final end date. We are committed to repealing part 7 as part of the security normalisation programme, which means that there is an end date in sight for the provisions, and that is right. The hon. Gentleman referred to the IMC, which has a vital role in verifying the commitments made in the IRA’s statement on 28 July. The IMC will produce an additional report in January 2006 to enable us to see what progress has been made on the ground.
That is not the only advice that we take. We also take very seriously the advice of the Secretary of State’s chief security adviser, the Chief Constable. Again, it is worth bearing in mind that all the progress that we are making and the legislation before the House is based not only on IMC reports but on other intelligence and security advice, which is led by the Chief Constable. It is in the context of that collective advice that we believe that it is right to put this legislation on the statute book in its present form, while recognising that there are no guarantees. That is why it is right to give ourselves the option of being able to renew the legislation for a further year.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I made clear on Second Reading, if we had to renew the legislation for a further year and if during that time it became apparent that despite our ambition for the enabling environment to achieve security normalisation the security situation in Northern Ireland had not been achieved, we would not play fast and loose with the security of people in Northern Ireland.
However, we believe that substantial progress has been made and, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, we should operate in a climate of optimism. If we give way to the activities of dissident republicans and their appalling behaviour at the race course on Saturday, if we let them win the day and if we withdraw the proposals and give way to the amendments, we would cede the ground to those people. We cannot do that. There is undoubtedly still a problem with activity by dissident so-called loyalists and republicans in Northern Ireland, but if we measure the activity and the crime—crime is the right word—of those individuals in comparison with that committed just a few years ago, we see that the activities are different and the scale far diminished.
It is probably relevant to remind all members of the Committee of Whiterock. I was there and I saw the appalling violence that took place, but again we must put it in context: it was nothing like as bad as historically it has been. That does not mean that we should condone the actions of those involved at Whiterock, but we should put it on the record that the activities that took place that evening were carried out by dissident individuals.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred to the way in which the loyalists’ reputation has been traduced by being called into question over  Whiterock. I think that those criminals should be called “so-called loyalists”. They do not remotely pertain to the decent behaviour of upstanding members of the Orange Order, many of whom I met yesterday again to discuss the events of Whiterock in looking forward to next year’s parade season. We must distinguish between the activities of a few individuals on both sides of the community who wish to prevent us from making progress in Northern Ireland and the will of the overall majority of the people of Northern Ireland to live in a secure environment. I believe that the measures in the Bill allow that, allow the enabling environment and allow us to move towards security normalisation, but let us take nothing for granted.

Laurence Robertson: I said that we wanted normalisation, but the fact that the Bill has been introduced suggests that the situation is not normal. The Minister says that we cannot allow certain dissident groups to get in the way of progress, but the introduction of the Bill means that, regrettably, that is what we are doing.
I know that the Minister is not depending simply on the IMC report, but, given the quote I gave, which made it clear that intimidation is strong, does he think that in the near future we will be able to appoint juries that will not be intimidated? That is not the only aspect of part 7, but it is probably the main part of it.

Shaun Woodward: I do not wish to indulge the Committee too much by discussing Diplock courts, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to when he talks about jury intimidation—we shall probably have time for an adequate debate on that later—but of course we recognise the problems of intimidation. That is why, in the next few days, we will have the opportunity to debate our proposals for what should succeed the legislation that allows Diplock trials to take place.
However, the actions of a few should not prevent progress for the many in Northern Ireland. In the spirit of bipartisan co-operation, we have worked collectively as political parties to make huge progress in the past few years. It is essential that we keep the drive for that progress on fast track. It is legitimately on fast track, but that is not to say that we should be irresponsible. For that reason, in renewing the legislation, for which, regrettably, we still need special provision in Northern Ireland, and in having a sunset period, we have struck the right balance. Equally, we recognise that we may not get to the desired position in time. Our optimism may, sadly, not be well placed, in which case we can renew the provisions for a further year.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, the people of Northern Ireland must recognise that we have the optimism to make progress on that enabling environment and on security normalisation. However, if at the end of the period we have not achieved that normalisation, and if the  intimidation that the hon. Gentleman worries about is still prevalent, we shall put in place measures to protect the people of Northern Ireland.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister referred several times to an enabling environment. He seems to be implying that the amendments may in some way negate the processing of that enabling environment. Will he outline the representations he has received from Northern Ireland against the Bill’s provisions and, therefore, against the enabling environment? Have any political representations been made about the renewal of the provisions?

Shaun Woodward: We have had representations on a number of issues relating to the Bill. I should like to clarify that I am not remotely suggesting that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to work towards an enabling environment. I am putting on record the fact that, in our judgment, the timing of the measures is appropriate and proportionate as a response to the climate in which we operate and in which we shall operate in 18 months’ time. If that is found to be wanting and we need to extend the provisions of the extraordinary measures for Northern Ireland, the Bill makes provision to do so. The right signal is sent by keeping the proposals and resisting the amendment.

Ann Winterton: I call Mr. Donaldson.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Thank you, Lady Hermon—I mean Lady Winterton. [Laughter.] I was thinking of an absent friend, and a press release I might issue later.
I hear what the Minister says and I understand the desire to create an enabling environment. Sometimes that is born more out of hope than expectation. However, I shall explain where we are coming from.
I hope the Minister accepts that we represent the majority. I do not mean a Unionist majority, but the majority who wish to see a peaceful environment in Northern Ireland. We are not in the mindset of simply having legislation in place for the sake of it. Nevertheless, we believe in the provisions because of the threat that we perceive exists not just now but in the future.
We have carried out assessments of various groups and the prospects of them moving to a peaceful engagement. The Minister will understand that there is no evidence of debate taking place among the two dissident republican groups to indicate that either is moving towards a ceasefire or a cessation of violence. With that in mind, there is a need for a safety net.
The legislation does not hurt anyone in Northern Ireland. It does not get in anyone’s way. It will not lead to a situation in which someone goes down the road and encounters a roadblock. It will not put a watchtower on top of a hill. It will not lead to a heavily protected police base being placed beside a Gaelic Athletic Association pitch. It is just a piece of legislation. It is the law. It is a safety net.
I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument that we have to remove the safety net after a period of time in order to create the enabling environment. Perhaps because my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and I have been through the worst of the  past 35 years in Northern Ireland and have seen false dawns, we have reason for being sceptical. The Minister will appreciate that our motivation is not to extend legislation for the sake of it, but to provide a safety net should it be needed. I accept that in his role as Minister with responsibility for security he will have access to information to which I do not have access.

Shaun Woodward: The safety net is in the provision for a further 12-month extension. In asking hon. Members to resist the amendment, we are also giving the guarantee made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself. If we have to ask for the safety net by an affirmative resolution, we would be signalling to the House that we were not making the progress that we expected to make. As we have repeatedly said, if, at the end of the period, it is important for people in Northern Ireland to continue to have special security measures, we will not play fast and loose with their lives.
We do not think that we will need the safety net, which is the 12-month extension. If, at the end of that period, special provisions in Northern Ireland are still needed, we have given the guarantee that people in Northern Ireland will have them. We believe that we will not need to make special provisions, and we hope that we shall not have to use the safety net.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Minister offers some reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and I were in the dark about what might happen beyond the 12-month safety-net period, as the Minister describes it. He has stated that the Government will consider the need for further special legislation. Nevertheless, we simply do not know where we will be at that point.
The extension of the legislation to 2012 is still prudent. It sends out a signal to dissident groups in particular that the Government retain the will to take whatever steps are necessary to deal with the threat that emanates from dissidents. In those circumstances, it is necessary to send out that signal.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 15.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: I want to ask the Minister for clarification on one point. Given that vote, it is clear that he wants the clause to stand part without the Conservative amendment, which would give us the opportunity to review and renew the legislation annually. That seems to be the opposite of what the Government are attempting in other legislation with the 90-day internment, as I would call it, or detention, as the Minister would call it.
That point is relevant because I am trying to work out the logical consistency between what the Government are trying to do in this Bill and what they expect their Back Benchers and the rest of us to do in considering other terrorist legislation. What is the logic behind those two apparently inconsistent positions?

Shaun Woodward: They are different positions. We are dealing here with the continuation of existing legislation and special provisions for Northern Ireland. We are doing so in a specific climate and in a specific framework, with an ambition to achieve security normalisation within a specified time and in an enabling environment in which we have identified the number of markers with which we wish to move forward. We are creating a safety net in case we do not achieve the necessary speed, but our ambition is that by the end of the period we can allow the statute to lapse. It is our hope and belief that we will achieve that aim.

Lembit Öpik: I applaud the Minister for his speedy response under pressure, but he will find that it does not hold water. I agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill, because I thought that the Minister cogently argued against the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. However, that necessarily contradicts what the Home Secretary is doing with other legislation.
The Minister will recall that in the debate on the amendments—which is relevant to the clause stand part debate—I said that we were talking about special provisions to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Government seek to introduce special provisions to deal with terrorism across the United Kingdom, but the logic would seem to be that either in both cases one should accept the Conservative proposals—which we should then be debating in the context of the clause stand part—or one should reject them in both circumstances.
I do not need to press the argument further, because I support the clause, but I point out to the Minister the profound inconsistency in how the clause is phrased—and in how the Minister guided his colleagues to vote on the amendment—and in how the Prime Minister is seeking to guide his colleagues to vote on the larger issue of terrorism across the United Kingdom.

Shaun Woodward: I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman the importance of recognising the specific proposals in the Bill. Also, in the Terrorism Bill—I am conscious that I seek for your indulgence in being able to discuss that, Lady Winterton—the Government are looking at  a specific UK threat from a kind of terrorism different from that being discussed here. The provisions that we are making here relate to an identified set of threats and how they should be handled. There is a continuity in how we will try to do that, but there is also a belief that within 18 months we will arrive at a point where we can allow these special provisions to lapse.
The other Bill, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, quite rightly applies to Northern Ireland, because it may, regrettably, be subject to the kind of horrific terrorist threats that we saw, tragically, in England in July. That Bill and the discussion about the 90-day period to which the hon. Gentleman alluded relate to Northern Ireland, but to a kind of terrorism different from the specific threats that we have identified and are covering here. Regrettably, we continue to identify those threats, albeit to a lesser extent, therefore justifying the need for the provisions in the coming 18 months.

Lembit Öpik: I do not intend to pursue the conversation across the Floor, but one point needs a response. I support the clause for the very reasons that the Minister and I put forward earlier. Now, in attempting to square a circle, the Minister is beginning to contradict the arguments that he made in opposition to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. Specifically, the Minister has said in the clause stand part debate, quite clearly, that he believes that there are different kinds of terrorism. I do not want to go too far, because I have made my point, but I utterly reject the Minister’s assertion that Northern Ireland terrorism is somehow good, manageable and understandable, while international terrorism—

Shaun Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit Öpik: I am happy to give way, but I would like to finish my sentence first.
It is unacceptable to suggest that Northern Ireland terrorism is in some way understandable, manageable and sane, whereas international terrorism is in some way motiveless and insane.

Shaun Woodward: I want to put it on the record that there is absolutely no toleration on this side of the Committee for the view that any terrorism is good, tolerable or sane. We absolutely and totally reject that hypothesis. It is absurd.

Lembit Öpik: The Minister is digging a bigger hole for himself. He believes that no terrorism is sane. I do not understand why the Prime Minister sought to negotiate with Sinn Fein and the IRA if it is, as the Minister implied, an insane organisation. That simply does not add up. The matter is substantially important to this debate because the underlying logic of the Government’s approach to terrorism is at the core of the points that the Minister made earlier. I am concerned that he is now contradicting the very arguments that I found persuasive in the debate that got us to the clause as it now stands.

Mike Hall: Would the hon. Gentleman mind explaining how he expects the peace process in Northern Ireland to proceed without negotiation?

Lembit Öpik: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman and the Government about the importance of a peaceful resolution involving dialogue with people who were formerly terrorists. My complaint is that the Minister is asking us to accept that all terrorism is insane.
I think I have made the point clearly enough and I do not want to strain your good will, Lady Winterton. However, I want to highlight the absolute contradiction, which the interventions of the Minister and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) made even clearer. They expect us to believe that all terrorism is insane. If that is so, the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Repeal of provisions of Part 7

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘(ba)section 75(6) (trial on indictment, non-scheduled offences)’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—‘Section 75(6).’.

Laurence Robertson: The drafting of the amendments is necessarily complicated. Clause 2 repeals part 7 of the 2000 Act and I seek to add a further section of that Act to those that are to be repealed. It may help the Committee if I read out section 75(6), to which my amendments refer. It states:
“Without prejudice to subsection (2), where the court trying a scheduled offence on indictment—
(a)is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence, but
(b)is satisfied that he is guilty of a non-scheduled offence of which a jury could have found him guilty on a trial for the scheduled offence, the court may convict him of the non-scheduled offence.”
This is a probing amendment, the spirit of which is important because the legislation contains a series of scheduled offences that can be tried without a jury and by a judge sitting alone. That is unsatisfactory and should be limited to offences where it is necessary. I am a little concerned about this part of the legislation; it would be possible to go through the whole of part 7 of the 2000 Act and pull it to pieces, but that is not why we are here. However, I was concerned to see that a judge sitting alone can try a non-scheduled offence in certain circumstances. Can the Minister say how often that happens? I accept, as he glares at his officials, of whom we do not have the benefit, that he may not have the information immediately to hand, but I should like him to accept the spirit of the amendment and to write to me and members of the Committee. That is what lies behind the amendments. I believe that it is a  reasonable question, given that we are all striving for normality, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Lembit Öpik: Unlike the previous debates, no great principle is at stake here, but I believe that there is a small principle. The hon. Gentleman is right to probe why, through accidents of circumstance, an individual could be tried for a non-scheduled offence in an environment set up specifically to deal with scheduled ones. The Minister may have a response to that. Alternatively, the Government may not have considered the point. As I said, there is no great principle at stake, but it might be helpful if the Minister provided us with his perspective on whether the Government would consider the matter now or on Report.

Shaun Woodward: The amendment would repeal section 75(6) of the 2000 Act, which allows a Diplock court to convict a person of an alternative non-scheduled offence where the defendant is found not guilty of a scheduled offence in that case. That would remove the court’s ability to convict a person of any alternative non-scheduled offences, so no conviction would ever be possible for an alternative non-scheduled offence, however clear the person’s guilt. Under the rule of double jeopardy, no subsequent proceedings could be brought against that person for an alternative offence.
I do not believe that that is what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury wanted to achieve with his amendment. Cases to which section 75(6) apply would have been tried in a Diplock court because the Attorney-General had decided that the offence was connected with the emergency in Northern Ireland. Even if the rule of double jeopardy were overcome and a subsequent jury trial for an alternative non-scheduled offence were possible, there would still be a risk of intimidation of jurors, which Diplock was brought in to counter. If intimidation were to occur, the case could collapse, making a conviction unattainable. Requiring a subsequent trial by jury for an alternative non-scheduled offence would also add significant delay to the criminal justice system. Although jury trial remains our ideal, Diplock courts provide a high quality of justice. I do not believe that jury trial would be worth the significant extra delay, when the issues in the case would already have been fully aired and debated.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a specific detail. I undertake to write to him. I looked to my officials with desperation. As desperation has not brought them quickly to my aid and as I do not intend to waffle and delay the Committee, I shall of course undertake to write to him.

Laurence Robertson: I look forward to receiving the Minister’s written response to the specific question. He mentioned that the non-scheduled offence might be connected to the security situation. I have some difficulty with that explanation, which I address on a later amendment. If it is not a scheduled offence, should it not be tried separately, with a jury? I think the Minister will take my point.

Shaun Woodward: I take the point. None the less, I believe that the explanation that I have given the hon. Gentleman stands.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was coming to the end of my remarks. I simply urge the Committee to reject the amendment. I hope that the explanation that I will provide for the hon. Gentleman in writing will suffice. None the less, I undertake to explore, also in my response to him, which I will make available to other members of the Committee, the issue that he raised.

Laurence Robertson: I accept the Minister’s serious response, but it is important that we explore the issue. The Bill sets out the Minister’s ability to schedule an offence, so that it is then tried in a certain way. If other offences are to be tried in that way, surely that should be stated in the Bill, so that we know exactly what is going on. However, the Minister’s response has been very reasonable. I look forward to receiving a letter from him and we may look at the issue again on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 28, at end insert ‘section 108 (evidence);’.

Ann Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in schedule, page 5, line 13, at end insert ‘Section 108’.

Lorely Burt: The amendment arises out of the recommendations contained in Lord Carlile’s report on the operation in 2004 of part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I am sure hon. Members will recollect that section 108 was originally introduced in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, following the Omagh bombing. The provision remained on the statute book in the new guise of section 108 of the 2000 Act. It makes provision for the evidence that may lead a court to conclude that a section 11 offence has been committed.
Subsections (2) and (3) of section 108 render admissible under a section 11 charge hearsay evidence that would otherwise not be admissible. The evidence must be given orally by
“a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent”.
If it is his opinion that the accused
“belongs to an organisation which is specified”
or
“belonged to an organisation at a time when it was specified”,
that statement shall be admissible as evidence of the matter stated. However,
“the accused shall not be committed for trial, be found to have a case to answer or be convicted solely on the basis of the statement.”
In his report, Lord Carlile states that, as far as he is aware, section 108 has never been used. The report was published some time ago, so I want to ask the Minister whether section 108 has been used in the past year. It is difficult to understand the merits of keeping on the statute book a provision that has never been used in its  seven years of existence. It is also difficult to envisage a situation in which a court would find itself able to attach the significant weight to evidence given under section 108.
Section 108 does not appear to be necessary. In his report, Lord Carlile states:
“I am totally unpersuaded by the arguments for its retention ... Section 108 could be repealed without any measurable disadvantage to the cause of public protection from terrorism. It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement.”
Why do the Government want to keep the section in force?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Lady raises an important issue. As I made clear on Second Reading, I want to put on the record the Government’s thanks to Lord Carlile for all his work. He has been exceptionally important in helping us to keep a balance in terrorism legislation and in ensuring that what we do is measured, appropriate and proportionate. However, that does not necessarily mean that we agree with everything he says. The hon. Lady will know, given her perceptive remarks, that we have taken issue with what he says in this one specific instance: he wants section 108 repealed, but we have resisted that.
The hon. Lady asked whether section 108 has been used. With the indulgence of the Committee, I will explore the background to the section and say why we believe that it is right to keep it on the statute book, even though we note her remarks. The amendments would permanently repeal section 108. That would mean that that provision—this is the crucial point—could never be brought into force again.
As I have made clear, I understand Lord Carlile’s remarks and his views on the provision. It is important to note—the hon. Lady referred to this—that, for various reasons, section 108 has yet to be tested in the courts. However, it may be worth reminding Committee members of a case involving section 108 statements which was taken against individuals believed to be responsible for attacking Coalisland PSNI station.
Section 108 evidence was intended to be entered to prove that the defendants were members of the Real IRA. The case collapsed because the judge decided that the Real IRA was not a proscribed organisation. That ruling was, I am pleased to say, overturned on appeal, but it meant that section 108 evidence that might have been used was not used or tested and the individuals walked away unpunished. I am aware that there have been convictions of Real IRA members in the Irish Republic with the assistance of a similar provision. In the current climate, it seems to me that the provision still has some utility.
Section 108 is designed to help achieve convictions for the offence of membership of a proscribed organisation. That is a difficult offence to prove to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt because such organisations by their nature are covert and membership cannot be evidenced by conventional means. Section 108 evidence should help to overcome  that hurdle. As paramilitary activities overlap further with acquisitive crime, it will remain important to have the option of proving that, for instance, a robbery was committed by a person who was a member of a proscribed organisation. In the absence of section 108, such membership will be very difficult to prove.
It would be hasty to repeal the provision permanently until it has been tested in the courts, particularly in the light of the way in which a similar provision has been used in the Republic. Only when it has been tested will we know whether Lord Carlile’s concerns are justified.
The provision may be used in five cases currently in the system in which the police are willing to make statements in court under section 108. Those cases could provide the necessary test of the provision. If they are successful and section 108 helps to achieve convictions for membership of a proscribed organisation, it will ensure that individuals are punished for the crimes they have committed and it will have a disruptive effect, helping to prevent future acts of terrorism.
Without section 108 it is possible that some of those prosecutions could not go ahead. Individuals would go unpunished, which would leave the people of Northern Ireland vulnerable to terrorist acts specifically as a consequence of removing the section 108 provision. Although I hear the hon. Lady’s comments and appreciate the weight of feeling from Lord Carlile, we believe for that reason alone that it is right to continue to resist his request that we repeal section 108. We recognise that the tests in those five cases may be extremely important.
It is appropriate to keep the provision on the statute book. There are five instances of where it is very probable that section 108 will be essential. If it were removed from the statute book and we could not use it, we are conscious of the effect that that may have on those five cases. That raises the prospect of five individuals, who we believe may also be guilty of terrorist action in the future, not being appropriately punished and put away.

Lorely Burt: I thank the Minister for his response. I feel rather more anxious than I did before. He makes two points. First, although section 108 has never been used in seven years, we will only know whether it works or not when it is tested. His second point linked paramilitary activities and acquisitive crime. He thinks that section 108 will assist in dealing with that, which concerns me deeply. Although it is clear that a number of paramilitary groups have been involved in acquisitive crime, using an additional lever to attack the criminal aspect of such groups’ activities in Northern Ireland fills me with concern because it seeks to address the criminal aspect.

Shaun Woodward: When we make those decisions, we do not do so lightly. It would be our ambition to repeal section 108 were it not needed, but the advice and the request that we have received from our security advisors, which in the case of Northern Ireland is the Chief Constable, is that the provision is necessary. As with the remarks by the hon. Member for  Montgomeryshire about the need for 90 days in the context of the other Terrorism Bill, and in the context of section 108, our decision is based on the advice of those who have to deal with terrorists. Our advice is that the provisions are needed and that the need for them continues.
The hon. Lady asks us to ignore that advice, but we maintain our view that we need section 108, because that is the view of our security advisors, the Chief Constable and those who wish to put away the terrorists and prevent them from carrying out the atrocities that they would otherwise carry out. This provision, like the 90-day provision, is to protect the general public.

Lorely Burt: I thank the Minister for that. To give the Government time to consider the matter, we intend to return to it on Report. Although I disagree with him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Scheduled offences

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, at end add—
‘(6)The Secretary of State may, by order, following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, determine that a specific case falling under a scheduled offence, shall be subject to trial by jury.
(7)In such a case, section 75(8) of the Terrorism Act 2000 shall not apply.’.
The amendment follows on from my previous amendments. The Secretary of State can currently schedule or unschedule offences. As I understand the legislation, murder, for example, could be scheduled or unscheduled. This is a probing amendment to find out the Government’s thoughts in an attempt to bring about greater normalisation. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power by order, following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, to determine that a specific case within a category can be tried by a jury rather than a single judge.
The second part of the amendment states that section 75(8) of the Terrorism Act 2000, which is the provision of an automatic right to appeal if a trial is conducted simply by a judge, will not apply. If the trial were to be conducted by a jury, the normal appeal procedures would apply.
I wondered whether it would be helpful for the Secretary of State to have, by order, the power to specify not only a category of offence—let us say murder is a scheduled offence—but a certain case if he were convinced that for a particular offence in a particular case a jury could be recruited that would not be subject to intimidation, and if he were satisfied that a trial could go ahead properly. Have the Government considered introducing such legislation?

Nick Palmer: I am worried that the amendment would lead to at least the perception of discrimination between individual cases and of political interference or—to choose a less loaded word—involvement in the judicial process. If there were two similar cases, and in one case the Secretary of State decided to intervene to allow a jury trial and in another he did not, there would be a risk that the person who came off worse would complain about the result. I have sympathy with the objective, but I believe that it is risky.

Shaun Woodward: It is fair to say that we were confused about what might lie behind this probing amendment. Therefore, to be of assistance, I shall explore what I think may be happening.
The amendment would create an additional mechanism for cases to be removed from the Diplock system. It would enable the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, to order that a particular case be tried by jury. Such orders would not be subject to the unfettered right of appeal of sentence or conviction available from Diplock courts.
The current process for taking cases out of the Diplock system is well understood. The Attorney-General certifies out of the Diplock system any case that seems to him to be unconnected with the emergency in Northern Ireland. We think that the hon. Gentleman may misunderstand the process of de-scheduling, because all offences listed in the schedule are automatically tried by Diplock courts. The Attorney-General determines that the offence is not connected to the emergency and therefore de-schedules it. This process has worked well for many years, and successive Attorneys-General have undertaken the role with great care and diligence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said, there may be some confusion; it is again is a question of understanding what lies behind the amendment. What is being proposed may be intended as an alternative to Diplock courts. The choice of Secretary of State and Lord Chief Justice seems somewhat odd on that basis, because it is a well-established principle that Ministers should not be involved in individual cases in this fashion and that the Lord Chief Justice’s interests lie in the smooth running of the courts and the management of the judiciary and not in the prosecution of individual cases. We would be concerned that involving him in the way set out in the amendment would risk placing the judiciary in the realm of the political.
I do not know whether that helps the hon. Gentleman, but we would certainly want him to withdraw the amendment, because we suspect that, for all his good intentions, he may not have understood the principle behind de-scheduling.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for his explanation, which was in accordance with what I understood the situation to be, hugely complicated though it is. I said that it was a probing amendment and given the Minister’s response I should like to look into the matter a little more deeply.

Shaun Woodward: This is an extremely complicated issue, so I am more than happy to ask my officials to set out for the hon. Gentleman a detailed explanation in writing, which will canter through the system and explain and adumbrate in greater detail why we believe it appropriate to resist the amendment and why we think that there may be a genuine misunderstanding on the hon. Gentleman’s part in tabling it. None the less, we welcome the probing amendment, because it gives us the opportunity to set out our opposition and why we maintain it.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Member for Broxtowe made a reasonable point. As I said, this is a probing amendment to test the Government’s thinking on the issue. I would welcome such a detailed explanation and, depending on its contents, we could return to the matter on Report. Again I thank the Minister for his reasonable response and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Mode of trial on indictment (no. 2)

‘(1)Section 75 of the Terrorism 2000 Act (mode of trial on indictment) shall be amended as follows.
(2)After subsection (1), insert—
“(1A)The court shall consist of three judges of the Crown Court.”.’.
—[Lorely Burt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lorely Burt: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would amend the way that the Diplock court system runs in Northern Ireland. Everyone knows the history of why single judges currently sit as both judge and jury in some cases. The Liberal Democrats are completely committed to the jury system of trial. We have fought against Government moves to infringe on that right during the passage of various criminal justice Acts in the past eight years.
We had the option to table an amendment that would simply have repealed section 76 of the Terrorism Act 2000, but we were aware that that might not gain a great deal of consensus in Committee. We have therefore taken up the highly reasonable suggestion made by Lord Carlile in his last report on the operation of part 7 of the 2000 Act that three judges of the Crown court should sit in such trials, rather than one. It is fair to recognise Lord Carlile’s assessment that Northern Ireland judges apply rigorous standards to the quality of evidence in non-jury trials, but in making the suggestion he stated that a three-judge court would command greater confidence in one part of the community, without diminishing confidence, rationally, elsewhere.
It is vital that we try to move towards a more normal system of trial for scheduled offences in Northern Ireland. Lord Carlile’s suggestion is very sensible. I agree with him that such a move would help to secure greater confidence in how the criminal justice system operates in scheduled-offence trials in Northern Ireland. The Government should seriously consider how best to move the situation forward.

Laurence Robertson: Obviously, we have considered the option ourselves and taken an interest in it. I am not quite sure how the three-judge court would work. Would they have to be unanimous in their verdict or would a majority verdict suffice?

Lorely Burt: I am not sufficiently familiar with what Lord Carlile said to be able to give the correct answer. Rather than pontificate, I will go away and get the right answer.

Mike Hall: What is your view on it—not Lord Carlile’s?

Lorely Burt: My personal view is that they should be unanimous.
Given the suggestions from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, there seems to be a mood in Committee that we should not carry on with the current situation. I am hopeful that the Government will take away these helpful ideas and come back on Report with measures to improve the way that trials are conducted.

Laurence Robertson: As I said in my intervention on the hon. Lady, we have some sympathy with her objectives, in the sense that her amendment is an attempt to move towards normalisation, and one judge sitting alone cannot be considered to be normal, but we have some concerns about how the system would work.
The intervention was not intended to be awkward; it is important to establish how the system would work. Would the court be similar to the Court of Appeal, where there can be a majority verdict, or would the verdict have to be unanimous? Would there be a problem—some hon. Members might say that we already have this problem, although I do not think so—if one of the three judges had Unionist tendencies and one had nationalist tendencies? Where would the third one come from? I foresee some difficulties with that.
The Minister will probably give a fuller explanation, but the backstop to the present system is the automatic right of appeal, which does not exist in the ordinary court system in Great Britain, where permission to appeal must be obtained. We do not have a principled objection to the Liberal Democrats’ proposal, but we are concerned about how it would work in practice.

Lorely Burt: The point about three judges and one having nationalist tendencies and another having other tendencies would negate the whole ethos of the system in which judges, by virtue of the fact that they are judges, should be independent. We are in no way criticising the existing judicial system in which judges are above reproach and independent, but if there were  three judges, the quality of their decisions would give additional confidence to all sectors of the community; they would not be representative of different sectors of the community.

Laurence Robertson: I understand the argument and accept what the hon. Lady says. I was about to wind up by saying that when the Minister responds to the hon. Lady’s reasonable points he could perhaps comment on those that I have raised.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raises important issues. She asked whether it would be appropriate now to change the Diplock system to one involving three judges—the system in the Republic—and, critically, what system should be in place in the longer term. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury asked how we should deal with jury intimidation in Northern Ireland in the longer term. That is relevant because the Bill could fall in 18 months or we may have to use the safety net for 12 months after that, but the Government would still need to confront the issue of how to deal with trials, which regrettably may still involve a degree of jury intimidation. The new clause is important.
The questions raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury are also important and I am sure that the whole Committee believes that it is right and appropriate that the Government find a sensible, considered and measured way forward in the handling of jury trials and dealing with intimidation. Realistically, even if we can achieve our goal of security normalisation in the short term, it is likely that we would still have to deal with that in the environment that follows. It is appropriate to look briefly at the issues.
New clause 2 would amend the Terrorism Act 2000 to provide that Diplock courts would consist of three Crown court judges. In her comments, the hon. Member for Solihull referred to observations by Lord Carlile. I pay tribute to him, but add that he has not been entirely consistent on the issue. He recommended three judges, but he also said that that was a decision not for him but for the Government. We know that when he feels strongly about an issue he is more than up to telling us that we should repeal something. He also said in his report as recently as 2004 that
“the present single judge courts continue to offer a high standard of justice: there is no evidence of any deficit in the quality of single-judge courts.”
In this instance we have an “on one hand” and an “on the other hand” and, perhaps significantly, he said that it is up to the Government to make a decision. For that reason, our decision at the moment is to maintain the present system. I will explain why.
One issue as well as fairness that it is appropriate to consider in any judicial system is cost to the taxpayer. Although it should never be put before fairness, it is none the less right to look at the cost of the criminal justice system. Lord Carlile himself acknowledges that there would be resource and training implications if we were to move to the three-judge system. In fact, in his 2003 report, he estimated that 10 additional judges would be required to produce the same criminal justice  system. Those judges would have to be recruited and trained, and accommodation would have to be provided for them. If necessary—of course we would do this if we were to move to that system—steps would have to be taken to protect their security. That would have significant financial implications.
In addition, three-judge courts could also create case management problems. Those involved in court administration would need to ensure that the three judges allocated were available for all stages of a trial, which could cause delays in the criminal justice system. We are concerned about delays in Northern Ireland anyway and are taking steps to improve the situation. It would be unfortunate if, in the hope of improving the criminal justice system, we created a by-product in the form of considerable delays. We are also concerned that there could be unwelcome speculation about the verdicts and the individual views of judges involved in such cases. It is not clear to me that that would increase confidence in any post-Diplock system.
Of course, none of those concerns is insurmountable. However, I am concerned to ensure that we do not change a system that fundamentally works. Lord Carlile himself thinks that it works pretty effectively. Having said that, we are conscious that if we achieve the normalisation that we want to achieve within the time scale, there will unquestionably be problems in the future, as a legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland, with regard to jury trials and the risk of intimidation. It will be necessary for the Government to introduce proposals to set out what should succeed the Diplock arrangements.
I gave the House an undertaking on Second Reading and I will give it again: the Government will want to introduce for consideration by the House proposals relating to what an appropriate future system should be in Northern Ireland. However, I want to put on the record our firm view that, even though we will achieve, as we hope, the enabling environment and security normalisation, it is realistic to assume that, regrettably, intimidation will remain a serious problem that will have to be confronted in trials. We will need to find a successor to Diplock.
One of the possible considerations might be the three-judge system—the sort of system offered in the Republic—for certain kinds of trials, where jury intimidation could be a problem. However, at the moment, we have not reached a settled view. In the spirit of the way in which we have tried to proceed on bringing resolution to the problems of Northern Ireland, we certainly want to involve cross-party consensus, if that is possible, since that is the most likely way in which we will produce the best criminal justice system for people in Northern Ireland. When we have firmer proposals, we intend to consult on them with hon. Members on both sides of the House. If possible, we might even consider pre-legislative scrutiny. That in itself is not a guarantee. What I will guarantee is that there is a spirit of wanting to consult wherever we can so that we introduce proposals that are bought into by all sections of all communities in Northern Ireland and by all political parties.

Lorely Burt: I thank the Minister for his full and informative answer. We would appreciate the opportunity to return to this matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Alasdair McDonnell: I want to put on record my position regarding the Bill. We do not seek to amend it, but we oppose it because the time for this legislation has passed. It should be allowed to lapse on 18 February. Normality is gradually returning to Northern Ireland and, to some extent, the Bill indicates a delay in the acceptance of that return to normality.
The history of emergency legislation in Northern Ireland is, to be honest, a sorry one. It is perhaps a history to which we should pay attention today and tomorrow because there are lessons to be learned from mistakes made during the past 30 years. I am thinking of the debate on the 90-day detention period that will take place tomorrow. Before this Bill, we had the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and before that the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922. During that time, there was considerable abuse of the powers incurred by those Acts.
The security powers have time and again abused the power vested in them, and in turn that alienated a whole community. Stop-and-search powers were used systematically to harass young people, particularly young men. In the 1970s, virtually every young male in a nationalist area ended up being lifted and pressed for information. Those who were not guilty and who were responsible for nothing were often pressed into making confessions or becoming informers, thereby compromising them in their communities. I know many parents who never left their teenage sons alone at home at night for fear that they might be taken away. Often, such young men got a beating. It was sometimes claimed by the authorities that they beat themselves up, which was quite amazing.
With seven-day detention it was possible to get young men and women to confess to much of what the police required them to confess to, and quite often we had miscarriages of justice. I do not want to go into a long list, but there were some significant cases in this country.

Gregory Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman outline for the benefit of the Committee any representations that constituents have made to him during the past two or three years about any way in which they had been adversely impacted by the implementation of the provisions?

Alasdair McDonnell: I have had representations, though not perhaps in the past couple of years. All the hon. Gentleman’s remarks do is suggest that the time for the Bill has passed because it is no longer relevant.
There were cases in this country, such as the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven and the Guildford Four. All were subsequently released, charges were reversed and significant embarrassment was caused to the Government. Justice was degraded by the Diplock courts, which had no jury and only one judge. Again and again the legitimacy of their judgments was called into question by the use of unreliable informer evidence and mass trials, which led to unjust outcomes. All of that, and the failure of the judiciary to tell it exactly as it was in cases such as the Widgery tribunal and the appeals of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, served only to discredit the law in the eyes of the nationalist community.
The result was—this is the lesson we must learn today and tomorrow—that such abuse of justice and maladministration plays right into the hands of those who care nothing for the law and care only about bringing chaos on to the streets. If we get the law wrong, we make an ass of the law and play into the hands of the very people we want to hold to account. Time and again, the people we were trying to hold to account scored one propaganda coup after another as even the most obviously guilty were able to garner sympathy when prosecuted in no-jury courts. Quite often, because of the malfunction of the law, they were able to walk away. That is the bitter legacy of emergency law in Northern Ireland.
The emergency law undermined the real, honest rule of law—the very law it was meant to protect—and, even more fundamentally, undermined the safety of the public, which we are meant to guarantee. That is the legacy. It is one that the Government should heed before they rush in on another front tomorrow, when they attempt to introduce three months’ detention before trial and a whole raft of draconian measures that will serve only to alienate rather than to create security.
That is why I, on behalf of the Social Democratic and Labour party, declare this simple position: we want to see, as quickly as possible, the end of the Diplock courts, a return to jury trial and the restoration of the principles of law that protect us all. We believe that that time is coming. We compliment the Government on the effort that they have made to bring about peace, but we must recognise that peace by bringing in normal laws as quickly as possible. That is why we oppose extending the law beyond February 2006.

Shaun Woodward: I am sorry that I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell). There are few matters in Northern Ireland that he and I disagree about in practical terms and, although I regret that he says he will have to vote against the Bill, I suspect that our disagreement is about shades of optimism rather than anything else.
We fervently wish that we did not have to renew the legislation. Our ambition would be to have achieved the enabling environment in which security normalisation made it possible for us to stand here today and say, “We believe that the security of the people in Northern Ireland is no different from the security of people elsewhere in the United Kingdom”.  However, the instances given this morning by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley of the disruption caused at the racecourse last Saturday and at the Hillsborough oyster festival in the summer, the activities of dissidence, the feuding that took place throughout the summer and the events of Whiterock and other parades all sadly evince the fact that, although the situation is dramatically better than it was in the past—no police officer or prison officer has been murdered in several years and attacks on individuals and intimidation are still declining dramatically—it is still not at a level that would enable us to say there was security normalisation. For that reason, although I firmly share the goal that he and every other member of the Committee has for a time of calm, security and stability, we do not feel that we have attained it. It is our hope and our goal, but we are not there yet.

Gregory Campbell: In addition to the incidents that the Minister outlines, is not it the case that just last night in Strabane a colleague of the hon. Member for Belfast, South was the subject of a serious attack on his home and his person? That gives us an example of the need for this type of legislation.
Mr. Woodwardrose—

Ann Winterton: Order. Perhaps it might be an opportune moment to remind the Committee that this is not a Second Reading debate. Remarks should be kept to a minimum so that the Committee can report the Bill to the House.

Shaun Woodward: As always, Lady Winterton, your exacting chairmanship reminds us of the need to be called to appropriate order.
As the hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of a security incident last night, it may be appropriate to add that we take that incident seriously and are waiting for more details. Of course we condemn it. None the less, it adds to the reasons why, regrettably, we cannot yet say that there is security normalisation and that we do not need the special provisions for Northern Ireland. However, as I said, the difference between the hon. Member for Belfast, South and myself is one of shades of optimism rather than anything else. I know that he wants security and normalisation in Northern Ireland. Our judgment is that we are not yet there and, unfortunately, cannot do away with the important and specific provisions in the Bill.
I thank you very much for your chairmanship, Lady Winterton, and for the indulgence that you have shown us, even allowing the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to make a—I am tempted to say—crude attempt to bring to the Committee discussions with which he wishes to entertain the House.

Lembit Öpik: To correct the Minister, I mentioned another Bill to pray in aid my understanding of what he was attempting to explain with regard to this Bill. I hope that I did not deviate in any way from the specific focus of this Bill.

Ann Winterton: If you had, I would have done something about it.

Shaun Woodward: Perhaps we can discuss deviation and repetition another time.
The debate has been an important opportunity through your chairmanship, Lady Winterton, to touch on some important issues. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the highly constructive spirit in which they approached the Bill. That allowed us to move comprehensively but speedily through it. The fact that we could scrutinise a major, albeit short, Bill at such speed and arrive at such significant consensus on major issues is a mark of the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland.
I thank hon. Members for their probing amendments on such issues as Diplock courts. We shall have to return to those issues, and the Government believe it quite right that they have been raised. I undertook to write to hon. Members who raised specific issues that I was unable to answer this morning. My officials will ensure that Members receive the adequate answers that they should receive.
I thank you again, Lady Winterton, for your chairmanship. I thank the Committee staff, the officials and the police who ensured that we were able to expedite our proceedings so well this morning.

Laurence Robertson: I echo what the Minister has said. This morning’s debate has been constructive. There are important issues that we must discuss. It is easy to sit in England, to see Northern Ireland as a far-away place and to pass legislation that affects them and not us. It is important that we do not pass legislation without considering the details closely. I hope that we have done that.
Several amendments have been probing amendments, but they have raised important issues about the way in which Northern Ireland is run. Whenever I have been there, I have found that one of the many desires of the Province is for normality. We are not there yet, for the reasons that the Minister and others have outlined and repeated.
I look forward to the next stage of the Bill. It is with great regret that we must consider it, but consider it we must. I hope that we can continue this constructive dialogue on future Bills. I should not wish to risk being ruled out of order when I suggest that the Government ought to continue to enable constructive dialogue. The Minister understands the legislation to which I refer. I do not think I can say any more without being ruled out of order.
May I thank you, Lady Winterton, for your chairmanship, which I have found to be firm but in the right spirit? May I thank also the Minister for his sympathetic treatment of the amendments that we tabled? I look forward to receiving his detailed explanations of the situations to which we referred, and I thank him for the way in which he has dealt with the debate. He has been accommodating while putting forward the Government’s principles and priorities.

Lembit Öpik: May I express my gratitude to you, Lady Winterton, for keeping us in order and for underlining the fact that I was in order during all my  observations? I echo the points made by the hon. Gentleman, who rightly pointed out the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny, something that in fairness the Minister highlighted in an earlier debate in relation to comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull. Pre-legislative scrutiny is unquestionably an effective means of easing the passage of legislation through Committee, because it enables us to iron out various differences that can be resolved before they become matters of confrontation in Committee.
May I also highlight the point already made about the Liberal Democrats looking forward to Report? There are two unresolved matters, which we think are important; specifically, Diplock courts and their construction; and repealing section 108. We hope that we will be able to secure some debate about those two matters on Report. We would be inclined to divide the House if necessary. I stress to the Minister that the objective is not to try to score points against the Government. We have a difference of view, which we would like to flag up to another place to inform the debate there.
In conclusion, in our more heated exchange earlier I sought to highlight a genuine inconsistency in how the Government seek to deal with terrorist issues in Northern Ireland and how they seek to address international terrorism in the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe that those differences are salient, because the Government have rightly taken credit for a considerable improvement in circumstances in Northern Ireland. I believe that that has been achieved by taking an approach to the problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland radically different to that proposed for international terrorism.
In that spirit, while thanking you once again for your sage counsel as Chairman, Lady Winterton, I encourage the Minister to reflect on the points that have been made. He may be constructive in using some of the good practices used here in this Bill to replace some of the bad practices proposed to the House in debates about terrorism tomorrow and at other times.

Gregory Campbell: I add the thanks of my colleague and myself to you for chairing the debate today, Lady Winterton.
The legislation is not desirable, but is none the less essential. The way the Minister conducted the discussion and guided us was helpful, as was your chairmanship, Lady Winterton, which I look forward to serving under in the future. My colleagues who drew Thursday rather than Tuesday are particularly grateful.

Ann Winterton: Before I put the Question, I would like to say how much I appreciate the way the Committee has conducted itself this morning, in the finest tradition of Parliament, and, on your behalf, to thank the Clerks and their Department for all the hard work that they put in before we even get here. I am grateful to the Clerk also because it is some eight years since I sat up here. I think that I have retaken my test this morning; I might not now have ‘L’, but I may have ‘P’ for probation. I hope that I have leapt that hurdle. With grateful thanks to all members of the Committee and to the staff, I shall put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o’clock.